Canadians want Fox News Now!

ps...the right wing has a 'college' which pumps these girls out...Coulter is a 'graduate'. It's The National Journalism Center, http://www.nationaljournalismcenter.org/ run by the Young America's Foundation...

Quote:

Young America's Foundation is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.

As the principal outreach organization of the Conservative Movement, the Foundation introduces thousands of American youth to these principles. We accomplish our mission by providing essential conferences, seminars, educational materials, internships and speakers to young people across the country.

http://www.yaf.org/whoweare.asp

Ann Coulter described her training there to the CS Monitor as follows:

Quote:

Ideology was not taught. Reporting was taught; do research and get your facts straight"

We are unconvinced.

Quote:

Rachel Marsden is a Canadian currently in residence at the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. She is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

http://www.etherzone.com/2002/mars071502.shtml

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

blatham wrote:
OK everyone. I want you to follow me through this one, because it is truly a classic....

Ticomaya wrote:
[
I thought what happened in one's personal life was private? Isn't that what the Democrats were all screaming when Clinton was being accused of lying under oath? Not to mention all his tawdry affairs, including his sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky outside the Oval Office. So if the point of your "classic" post, Blatham, is to denigrate Ms. Marsden, I don't know her nor do I much care if her reputation is further besmirched by your in-depth research into her character,

JTT: Tico says, "I thought what happened in one's personal life was private." And then he berates Democrats and then lays out all the dope on Clinton. Can you say "hypocrite", Tico?

Quote:

but I do find it a bit at odds with how the Democrats in this country insisted Clinton be treated in the wake of the multiple sexual misconduct allegations, and his admission of lying. Was Clinton incapable of performing the duties of his high office because he had these extramarial sexual escapades, or because he committed a crime while president?

A crime, A, that's A crime right. And what happened? He went throught the legal process defined by the Constitution and guess what, sensible minds prevailed.

How many millions of dollars were spent to bring a guy to "justice" over a
blowjob? The very real difference is that GW won't go under oath or there would be multiple counts to adjudge.

Over 100,000 Iraqis dead, some 1611 coalition troops, "at least 10,770 U.S. troops" injured, why? because of lie upon lie upon lie. And you have the temerity to bring up Clinton. You must be one of the 59 odd million that the Mirror referred to.

"how the Democrats in this country ..." A wee bit of research wouldn't hurt your case at all. You seem to have the same problem as Ms Just Wonders, but then you're not a journa , .... no, on second thought you could very well work for Faux News or as one of Bill O'Reilly's researchers.

You obviously missed the point of my post regarding hypocrisy. Read it a few more times, then try again.

Oh, and the crime of which I spoke, was his lying under oath. I'm not too concerned about the fact he was pleasured by Ms. Lewinsky ....

Blatham wrote:

OK? Those seem to be the fundamental and relevant differences between the two cases you bring forward.

You too are missing my point by focusing on the differences between Clinton's situation and Ms. Marsden/Henderson. I never claimed the circumstances surrounding their personal escapades were similar. The point is she wrote a column which you do not care for, so you attack the column by pointing out she has had some personal problems in her life. My purpose is to point out the hypocracy of attacking her personally when you don't like her message, in light of the hue and cry from the leftists when Clinton was being investigated. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same ( Very Happy

) but allow me to point out the hypocrisy.

Still, I fail to see where Ms. Marsden/Henderson is being hypocritical, which to you is the yardstick of whether personal private sexual behavior is relevant. Perhaps you can elucidate?

Honesty is an admirable trait. Clinton is a self-admitted liar - like it or not, he admitted to having lied. But the fact that he is a liar is indicative of his character and has a potential influence on his fitness for the high office, but has precious little to do with a speech he gives if he makes a valid point. Your attack upon Ms. Marsden/Henderson's fitness to speak on political issues based upon the incidents you identified in your post in question, is very similar to any attack upon Clinton's fitness to speak on any political issues based upon the various incidents and allegations against him, and the fact that he is a self-admitted liar. Should I respond to Clinton laying out a 12 step-plan to reform the welfare system by saying, "Yeah, well, he lied under oath .... and he got a 'Monica' outside the oval office ... and sexually harrassed a lot of other women." Hmm? Has little to do with the merits of his plan.

My point (and again this is my only point -- I'm not attempting to defend Ms. Marsden/Henderson, even if it appears you have dragged me into that position) is to point out the hypocracy involved in a leftist bringing out such "personal attacks" against the character of someone of the political opposition. I recognize the relevance of evidence of lack of veracity if the truth of the matter asserted is at issue. In this instance, I do not believe that is the case, nor do I believe that even if it were, these instances which you have paraded before us rise to the level of demonstrating a character trait of deception. Clinton having admitted to being a liar, will always be a liar in my mind. That didn't mean he couldn't deliver an effective address on foreign policy to the country.

And as far as Marsden/Henderson being a "staple figure in the right wing media," ... great .... never heard of her before this thread. Don't necessarily care to hear about her again.

Also, if you were an equal opportunity investigator of "deplorable levels of journalism," I'm sure you could find examples on both sides.

Finally, did I mention that Clinton is a self-admitted liar ..... Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

You too are missing my point by focusing on the differences between Clinton's situation and Ms. Marsden/Henderson. I never claimed the circumstances surrounding their personal escapades were similar. The point is she wrote a column which you do not care for, so you attack the column by pointing out she has had some personal problems in her life. My purpose is to point out the hypocracy of attacking her personally when you don't like her message, in light of the hue and cry from the leftists when Clinton was being investigated. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same ( ) but allow me to point out the hypocrisy.
Is this another homer simpson moment? You really ought to re-read what I wrote above. I haven't attacked her column. I didn't read her column. I seldom agree with either David Brooks or Tucker Carlson, but I've pasted (favorably) bits from both of them here over the last two years. I truly don't care about her sexuality. I do care about her competence, her integrity, and her connections.

Still, I fail to see where Ms. Marsden/Henderson is being hypocritical, which to you is the yardstick of whether personal private sexual behavior is relevant. Perhaps you can elucidate?
I didn't say she was hypocritical. I said it seemed to me that the only case where a person's sexuality was relevant was where other behaviors made such hypocritical. I did point to the 'stalking' also, but that's not relevant to sexuality or hypocrisy. It does suggest a rather serious personal problem, and that's of some relevance to dependability. Read again what I said there.

Honesty is an admirable trait. Clinton is a self-admitted liar - like it or not, he admitted to having lied.
Yes, he did. You'll note in your re-read that I said he had. I also said that is relevant ethically. You'll possibly also note I didn't defend him, while compelling defense is available. I have admitted to lying myself. It is certain that you have too. We all lie, sometimes. It is patterns of deceit and species of/or consequences of our deceits which becomes important ethically. Do you trust the person who says they never lie? If Bush fessed up to just one lie, I'd sent him a card on the 14th.
But the fact that he is a liar is indicative of his character and has a potential influence on his fitness for the high office, but has precious little to do with a speech he gives if he makes a valid point.
Yes. Given the above.
Your attack upon Ms. Marsden/Henderson's fitness to speak on political issues based upon the incidents you identified in your post in question, is very similar to any attack upon Clinton's fitness to speak on any political issues based upon the various incidents and allegations against him, and the fact that he is a self-admitted liar.
Again, a re-read might clarify that the elements of the history I pointed to demonstrates not a fib ("I didn't blow the prof") but to a pattern of deceits which make the matter more acutely important.
Should I respond to Clinton laying out a 12 step-plan to reform the welfare system by saying, "Yeah, well, he lied under oath .... and he got a 'Monica' outside the oval office ... and sexually harrassed a lot of other women." Hmm? Has little to do with the merits of his plan.

My point (and again this is my only point -- I'm not attempting to defend Ms. Marsden/Henderson, even if it appears you have dragged me into that position) is to point out the hypocracy involved in a leftist bringing out such "personal attacks" against the character of someone of the political opposition. I recognize the relevance of evidence of lack of veracity if the truth of the matter asserted is at issue. good In this instance, I do not believe that is the case, nor do I believe that even if it were, these instances which you have paraded before us rise to the level of demonstrating a character trait of deception. Though the independent finding studying the SFU matter did, and that aside from that, a second look by the university resulted in exoneration? And the deceit regarding who she actually was? Clinton having admitted to being a liar, will always be a liar in my mind. That didn't mean he couldn't deliver an effective address on foreign policy to the country.

And as far as Marsden/Henderson being a "staple figure in the right wing media," ... great .... never heard of her before this thread. Don't necessarily care to hear about her again. No, a misread. She is typical of modern rightwing media female pundits...in the characteristics I mentioned.

Also, if you were an equal opportunity investigator of "deplorable levels of journalism," I'm sure you could find examples on both sides.
That is, tico, an uneducated surmise, if the surmise includes a notion of parity, which I expect it does.

Finally, did I mention that Clinton is a self-admitted liar .....
Yeah, you did. The reason that is disappointing is the 'self-admitted' part. Simple. As ethical theory, it is homer simpson level. Were you around for Nixon, Halderman, and Erlichman? For Casey, North and Abrams? Not a lot of self-admission of lies.

0 Replies

Blatham wrote:

Is this another homer simpson moment? You really ought to re-read what I wrote above. I haven't attacked her column. I didn't read her column. I seldom agree with either David Brooks or Tucker Carlson, but I've pasted (favorably) bits from both of them here over the last two years. I truly don't care about her sexuality. I do care about her competence, her integrity, and her connections.

Fine. ..... This does not address my point.

Blatham wrote:

I didn't say she was hypocritical. I said it seemed to me that the only case where a person's sexuality was relevant was where other behaviors made such hypocritical. I did point to the 'stalking' also, but that's not relevant to sexuality or hypocrisy. It does suggest a rather serious personal problem, and that's of some relevance to dependability. Read again what I said there.

I know you didn't say she was hypocritical, which is why I pressed you on the issue. You said a person's sexual behavior is irrelevant unless it indicates hypocrisy. Now I know you agree she was not being hypocritical, and you do not believe discussion of her sexual behavior is relevant.

Blatham wrote:

Though the independent finding studying the SFU matter did [indicate deception], and that aside from that, a second look by the university resulted in exoneration? And the deceit regarding who she actually was?

Nothing that appears to be conclusive. What does "exonerated" mean to you? What about "unsubstantiated"? That's another term thrown around which means precisely diddly. It certainly does not prove an intent to deceive. But again, why am I trying to defend this lady. I don't know why she chose to use another name .. do you? Or have you merely assumed she was trying to be deceitful in doing so, ruling out all other possible reasons? It is these ad hominem attacks which have no relevance in debating the merits of her work.

Blatham wrote:

Tico wrote:
Also, if you were an equal opportunity investigator of "deplorable levels of journalism," I'm sure you could find examples on both sides.
That is, tico, an uneducated surmise, if the surmise includes a notion of parity, which I expect it does.

Ever read the New York Times? What about TimesWatch.org? MediaResearch.org? Plenty of liberal rag journalism to find "deplorable." All you have to do is look at it -- with eyes wide open, of course. Wink

Blatham wrote:

Yeah, you did. The reason that is disappointing is the 'self-admitted' part. Simple. As ethical theory, it is homer simpson level. Were you around for Nixon, Halderman, and Erlichman? For Casey, North and Abrams? Not a lot of self-admission of lies.

Ah. You find it an admirable character trait that someone who has admitted lying under oath will admit to doing so. Did Nixon lie under oath?

0 Replies

Quote:

Nothing that appears to be conclusive. What does "exonerated" mean to you? What about "unsubstantiated"? That's another term thrown around which means precisely diddly. It certainly does not prove an intent to deceive. But again, why am I trying to defend this lady. I don't know why she chose to use another name .. do you? Or have you merely assumed she was trying to be deceitful in doing so, ruling out all other possible reasons? It is these ad hominem attacks which have no relevance in debating the merits of her work.

Conclusive, no. Likely, yes. You understand the level of certainty that courts have to work with most all of the time. But look again at what the findings said regarding her truthfulness, or probably truthfulness.

Once again, I made no address to her 'work'. That would be a separate analysis, paragraph by paragraph, column by column. But her veracity is surely in question. And so are her credentials.

Quote:

Ever read the New York Times? What about TimesWatch.org? MediaResearch.org? Plenty of liberal rag journalism to find "deplorable." All you have to do is look at it -- with eyes wide open, of course.

I note the smileys. But the key issue sits in here.

Quote:

Blatham wrote:
Yeah, you did. The reason that is disappointing is the 'self-admitted' part. Simple. As ethical theory, it is homer simpson level. Were you around for Nixon, Halderman, and Erlichman? For Casey, North and Abrams? Not a lot of self-admission of lies.

Ah. You find it an admirable character trait that someone who has admitted lying under oath will admit to doing so. Did Nixon lie under oath?

You've stuck with simple. Do you truly believe that Clinton lying about a blowjob under oath is at all comparable to what happened with Watergate?

0 Replies

Blatham wrote:

Conclusive, no. Likely, yes. You understand the level of certainty that courts have to work with most all of the time. But look again at what the findings said regarding her truthfulness, or probably truthfulness.

Let me throw something else at you that courts "have to work with." That is the concept, in a criminal matter, evidence of the defendant's bad character trait is inadmissible unless the defendant puts his/her character "in issue." In other words, only if they claim to have a particular good character, can the prosecution try and impeach it or present evidence that they have a particular bad character. Also, evidence of prior "bad acts" is generally inadmissible to prove a particular defendant has a disposition to perform another "bad act."

Thus, if Ms. Marsden was proclaiming to be as pure as the driven snow, or to be railing against women who make false sexual harrassment accusations against men, then you could parade out the evidence of her own incidents in that regard.

Her veracity is not in question. You are attempting to place it in question. I have no idea what her credentials are, but I fail to see how they are in question, or how your post addressed same.

Blatham wrote:

Tico wrote:
Blatham wrote:
Yeah, you did. The reason that is disappointing is the 'self-admitted' part. Simple. As ethical theory, it is homer simpson level. Were you around for Nixon, Halderman, and Erlichman? For Casey, North and Abrams? Not a lot of self-admission of lies.

Ah. You find it an admirable character trait that someone who has admitted lying under oath will admit to doing so. Did Nixon lie under oath?

You've stuck with simple. Do you truly believe that Clinton lying about a blowjob under oath is at all comparable to what happened with Watergate?

No, and I've never said it was. But I find it egregious that a President of the Unites States would swear an oath to tell the truth, then lie through his teeth. Do you think such behavior is excused based upon the subject matter of his lie?

0 Replies

Hmmm - I must say I think this one is fair cop for Tico on the sexual harassment stuff.

I DO, however, think that for the woman in question to be blowing Fox's trumpet without making it clear that she does a lot of work for Fox, (if she didn't) absolutely sucks, and IS evidence of very unethcal behaviour.

The political affiliations stuff is interesting.

I don't (and this is my opinion only) think Tico gets to be our benchmark on 0 to Clinton.

Dammit!!!! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Now I have to go out and shoot myself - oh, dammit - I live in a country with sensible gun laws - hmmmm - throw myself under a semi-trailer?

Whoodathunk that it would all end up as roadkill in the gutter.....

I must say, though, that she IS an incredibly nasty piece of work!

Accusing someone falsely of sexual harassment burns me up beyond belief - not only because it is such a disgusting thing to do, but that it gives ammo to the people who DO sexually harass, when they are complained of legitimately, to get out of it.

She's scum in my book....

0 Replies

Stalking is such a genteel perversion. She's perfect for the The National Journalism Center. Great head hunting, I'll say.

0 Replies

Some of us here didn't think Mr Clinton told any lies when he said that he didn't have sex with that woman.His problem was that his audience wouldn't understand that position and,worse than that,would be extremely shocked at having it explained to them.Rather than shock them in that manner he chose to take the heat which those of us who do understand thought very magnanimous and justified our high opinion of the man.
As a Christian one would say to provide a little clarification that sex only takes place when the possibility of conception is present.Everything else is something else.A mere extension of a handshake.A bit of fun should we say.Bundling I gather some Americans call it.
My problem with the Just Wonders stuff was that it was meaningless and insulting to our reading skills.
Mr Donnely should take more care in choosing his playmates.That's the key message.Beware career women.

0 Replies

Okay, I've come into this thread late, and have read most (not all) of the posts on 19 pages. I have come to the following conclusion:

1) The general consensus is that conservatives consider Fox News to be a news channel and more fair and balanced than any other;

2) The fact that Fox News does present news reporting that is not critical of the current administration, George Bush, the war, the military, etc. is reason enough for some to believe it is a mouthpiece of the State or the GOP. Those same people don't notice or will not acknowledge any negative news reporting re the administration, president, or GOP.

3) Canadians have every much right to watch Fox News as Americans do but most won't watch.

4) Most of you are nuts, at least some of the time.

5) This is pretty funny here and there. Smile

Following are some stats on Fox News market share compared to other news sources. How would you guys account for this, and how is Fox doing in Canada so far?

FOX News Channel Garners 55% of Cable News Audience
Jun 30, 2004 8:25 a.m.

NEW YORK -- Fox News Channel garnered more than 50% of the cable news audience in primetime and total day during the second quarter of this year, according to Nielsen Media Research cited by the Fox News Channel.

In contrast, CNN and MSNBC both attracted less than a third of the same market share, stated a news release from Fox News Channel. In prime time, Fox News Channel commanded 55% of the cable news market share, averaging 1.4 million viewers, while CNN claimed 32% of that audience with 828,000 viewers. During Rick Kaplan's first full quarter as president of MSNBC, its prime-time line-up attracted 13% of the cable news audience with 321,000 viewers (down 41% in viewership year to year).

Fox News Channel total day average of 820,000 viewers made up 54% of the cable news pie, nearly doubling CNN's 31% (468,000 viewers) and more than tripling MSNBC's 15% share (226,000 viewers).

In the key 25-54 age group demographic, both CNN and MSNBC lost more than half their 25-54 audience in these day parts over the same period last year. Fox News Channel averaged 457,000 persons in prime time and 291,000 persons in total day, exceeding CNN and MSNBC's combined totals of 344,000 persons in prime and 231,000 persons in the total day time periods.

In addition, Fox News Channel captured nine out of the top 10 shows in cable news. CNN's only show in the top 10, Larry King Live, remained at No. 4 with 1,291,000 viewers, trailing Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor (2,051,000 viewers), Hannity & Colmes (1,492,000 viewers) and The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (1,339,000 viewers) respectively.

FOX News Channel is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, entertainment and business news. Owned by News Corp., the cable channel is available in more than 85 million homes.

http://www.business-journal.com/FOXTopQ204.asp

0 Replies

How would I account for it?

Nobody ever got poor providing pap for the lowest common denominator.

Shrugs.

Murdoch has proved that for years - as have many before him, and as will many after.

This is life.

MY cavil is with this crap daring to market itself as fair and balanced when it is cartoonish in its slant.

If it wants to be so, (and Murdoch DOES run the odd sort of quality rag - in the case of The Australian newspaper, desperately pulling it back up from the depths of gross right politicization that he nearly destroyed it with earlier) - so be it - let the man make money any way that is legal. But for Fox so shrilly and aggressively to market itself as a fair outlet - pshaw.

By the way - I do not think all the conservatives on this thread saw it as more balanced, Fox - I think some or one (can't remember) saw it as countervailingly unbalanced - a sort of corrective unbalance.

I assume that much of its popularity, too, is in (if Murdoch is stable across cultures) its tendency to over-dramatization, colour, concentration on sensationalism etc, like any low-grade media outlet - thrill 'em and scare 'em. Sexed up news.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let me throw something else at you that courts "have to work with." That is the concept, in a criminal matter, evidence of the defendant's s bad character trait is inadmissible unless the defendant puts his/her character "in issue." In other words, only if they claim to have a particular good character, can the prosecution try and impeach it or present evidence that they have a particular bad character. Also, evidence of prior "bad acts" is generally inadmissible to prove a particular defendant has a disposition to perform another "bad act."

Thus, if Ms. Marsden was proclaiming to be as pure as the driven snow, or to be railing against women who make false sexual harrassment accusations against men, then you could parade out the evidence of her own incidents in that regard.

Her veracity is not in question. You are attempting to place it in question. I have no idea what her credentials are, but I fail to see how they are in question, or how your post addressed same.

It is precisely her veracity which is in question. More generally, it is the veracity of the right wing media outlets which have come into being over the last thirty years which is in question.

Let's go back a step or two here. JW posted an article from a right wing publication http://www.canadafreepress.com/ A survey of the site shows pretty quickly that right wing views and opinions are all it carries. That was predictable with high probability. I thought it would be of educative value to demonstrate how this site is set up, and how it is linked to many others just like it. JW quotes and links almost exclusively from this web of right wing media (so do you, tico). The column relied upon another (from another right wing source) by Marsden, so I went looking there, and found what I found and posted earlier.

Your arrival in the discussion began with a post suggesting hypocrisy on my part because there was sexual stuff in the account of Marsden's past and as a liberal, I'd likely have protested the media coverage (and republican concentration on) Clinton's sexual life with Monica. I mentioned there was an entirely fine goose/gander rejoinder available to me which makes the charge of hypocrisy fairly derisable (the right did it big, so tough luck if they get it back...how hypocritical of them to suggest it is suddenly not ok now) but I didn't bother with it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. You carried on with a brief and shallow derogation of falsehoods and Clinton as 'admitted liar', also irrelevant to the discussion, and involving a complex set of ethical questions which could take up many threads by itself.

I clarified that for me the sexual stuff was irrelevant and uninteresting (though neither Rupert Murdoch nor Ann Coulter would say the same) but that Marsden's deceit on her real name (she was let go immediately upon discovery of the deceit for the deceit) and her likely deceits regarding claims at SFU. On this last, I posted the independent investigation's findings but I have the advantage here of some two years of local news coverage on the matter. Her veracity is very highly suspect.

I claimed her credentials as a news reporter and political analyst are paltry at best. You said you don't know what her credentials are. Obviously you didn't try to find out but you may not consider there are any necessary credentials for news reporting and political analysis. That would fit with a very great deal of what passes for right wing media punditry. What is important is not care in research, transparency on sources, avoidance of logical fallacies, objective analyses of information...what is important is political stance. If it is in agreement with the echo chamber message, that is enough.

I said earlier that your default notion that the traditional media (you mentioned a few...NY Times etc) and this new right wing media operate under similar journalistic and ethical constraints and independence of voice is an 'uneducated view'. It is. Thus the value of dancing with you on the topic is minimal, particularly considering the size of your feet.

Now, if you would like to procede with some rigor, that could be valuable. We could take two or four representative media outlets and analyze them against an agreed upon set of criteria...multiple viewpoints expressed? verification of claims? paucity of fallacies?

You want to do it this way, or are we done here?

0 Replies

Quote:

Besides, I thought that moving from stick replacements to the destruction of forests was taking the metaphor much too far. Something had to be done!

OK, I'll admit it. It was an Al Franken joke from Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. I felt moved to tell it in response to a provocation. Maybe I should have resisted, still it seemed apt. Just a little stick for a stone. I try to behave, but sometimes, I'll admit, I'm not a nice person. Sorry (sort of).

0 Replies

Quote:

How would you guys account for this . . . FOX News Channel Garners 55% of Cable News Audience

It's easy to sell donuts to minors. Veggies and meat low in colestorol are a harder sell when the shop across the street is handing out Krispy Kreams for free.

0 Replies

Or just maybe a lot of those folks who aren't watching Fox in the USA are those same folks who just don't seem to 'get it' that they are the ones out of the mainstream now. The same folks (a substantial majority) who reject the emptiness of most liberal talk radio and embrace the more substantive content of conservative talk radio are the ones who have handed Fox its phenomenal success. Fox's un-fans stand around, whine, and make ridiculous accusations. It never seems to occur to them that the other media sources could well clean up their own acts in order to become more competitive. The mantra seems to be that there is something wrong with Fox and it should disappear.

I frankly will be very curious to see if there are enough Canadians who have not been so brainwashed with liberal propaganda that they can no longer see any other point of view. If there are, Fox should be hugely successful in Canada as well.

0 Replies

Opinion noted.

0 Replies

Given that the most popular morning radio program in Toronto, which is said to be the most competitive radio market in North America, is now the CBC, I'd suspect Fox has got its work cut out for it. The Canadian media market is quite different from the U.S. Much as the retail market is. All the things that Walmart said it didn't do as a matter of principle - no sales, no unions ... - well, they're having to do them in Canada. Canada, quite simply, is not the U.S. Different population, different marketplace.

Since I don't watch the alphabet city end of the t.v. dial, I won't see more of Fox than I do now - unless I see that naked neighbour again. But I will be interested to see how they do in the marketplace.

0 Replies

An interesting study on Media Bias;

Quote:

A Measure of Media Bias (download note - 29 page PDF file)

Tim Groseclose
Department of Political Science, UCLA, and
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
Jeff Milyo
Harris School of Public Policy
University of Chicago
September 2003

A Measure of Media BiasAll of the news outlets except Fox
News' Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.[/co;or]
Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report,
the Drudge Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the average
Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One
of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in
our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted
editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

I recommend you read the entire thing. Numerous other studies conducted in the past coup0le years corroborate this study's findings. Here's one of 'em:

Research Paper No. 1845
PERSISTENT MEDIA BIAS
David P. Baron
Stanford University
February 2004 (download note - 40 page PDF file)

Does seem to me The Left is upset their's isn't the majority voice, and seek to remedy the situation by curtailment of the public's right-to-choose; "if it ain't librul, it ain't good; its gotta go away"

Pretty facist stance, if ya think about it. Of course, my even sayin' so is gonna upset the libruls - which serves only to further confirm the point. Them folks truly just don't get it.

0 Replies

and that relates to the Canadian market as much as most of the rest of this. if you guys want to go talk about the u.s. media market, why don't you go do that somewhere?

oh well.

0 Replies

Canadians want Fox News Now!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know